ML20094P631

Summary of Testimony & Testimony of Ds Kochhar on Contention 1 Re Reinsp Program.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20094P631
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	08/14/1984
From:	Kochhar D MICHIGAN, UNIV. OF, ANN ARBOR, MI
To:
References
OL, NUDOCS 8408170307
Download: ML20094P631 (24)

Text

3

' b.g )

..- 1* 4-jo.

RELATED CgRp,p{03DM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION uh

'BEFORE THE' ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ~ DOCKETED .

USHRC

.In~the Matter of: )

) Docket Nos. 50-454 OL '8i AGO 16 PI:IS

-COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY' ) 50-455 OL

) -

(Byron Nuclear Power Station, ~)

Units 1 and 2) )

SUMMARY

OF'THE DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DR. DEV S. KOCHHAR ON CONTENTION 1 (REINSPECTION-PROGRAM)

-I. D r. Dev S. Kochhar is an Associate Professor of Industrial and Operations. Engineering at the University of Michigan.

He has engaged in extensive.research and consultation activities on how-human factors affect quality control inspector performance.

II. Dr. Kochhar describes how human factors can affect -job performance, the typically monotonous nature of the inspec-tion task and his familiarity with the Byron reinspection program.

III. Dr. Kochhar identifies and discusses three particular human factors affecting inspector and reinspector performance

'that are apparent in the design methodology of the Byron reinspection program:

A. Limiting the reinspections to the inspectors' first three months of job performance.

B. That, in~most cases, the reinspectors knew the names of the original inspectors.

C. That, in most cases, the reinspectors knew the results of the original inspectors.

i I

O N $4 PDR

I'V .. 'Dr. Kochhar. describes why inspector performance reaches its

~ ' highest proficiency level in the period following comple-tion of training. Inspectors-are more attentive due to the 7 novelty of the new: job. The inspection task is monotonous, .,

and as sensory stimulation declines over. time,-the level of performance effectiveness _ correspondingly'-declines.

Reliance on reinspection of-the first three months of' inspector performance and the corresponding assumption that this would lead to a conservative bias in the reinspection

~

. program results are highl'y questionable. It is'likely that, the reinspection program results reflect an opposite bias.

. The program would- have more accurately examined inspector performance if the reinspections had been~ conducted over an' extended range of the work period.

V. Dr. Kochhar describes why .the reinspection program results-were biased because in most cases the reinspectors knew the

-identities of the. original inspectors. This knowledge most probably led to' a higher percentage of conforming reinspec-tions.

VI. Dr. Kochhar describes why the reinspection program results were biased because in most cases the reinspectors knew the .

original inspection results. This knowledge most probably led to a higher percentage of conforming reinspections.

VII. D r. Kochhar concludes that the cumulative effect of these 4

three human. factors on the Byron reinspection program re-sults most probably increased the percentage of the orig-inal inspectors' work found to be acceptable by the rein-spectors. Reliable conclusions about the reinspection program results can be made only af ter the biases from these human factors are.taken into account.

, '2

t _ UNITED' STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE-THE ATOMIC ~ SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ,

In the Matter of: -)

) Docket Nos. 50-454 OL

) 50-455 0L-COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY )

~)

(Byron Nuclear Power Station, )

' Units 1 and 2). )

l TESTIMONY OF'DR. DEV S. KOCHHAR Q1: Please state your full name and place of employment.

i A1: My name -is Dev S. Kochhar. I am an Associate Professor of Industrial and Operations Engine'ering at the University of l'

Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Q2: -Please describe your educational and professional background.

A2: I hold both a Ph.D. and M.A.Sc. in Systems Design Engineering l

l from the University of Waterloo (Canada). Previously,-I l

received a B. Tech. (Honors) in Mechanical Engineering from the Indian -Institute of Technology (India).

l Prior to obtaining my current faculty position at the l

! University of Michigan in 1980,,I was employed as an Asso-l l ciate Professor of Systems Engineering at the University of Regina (Canada) (1978-80), as an Assistant Professor of Industrial Engineering at the University of Windsor (Canada)

(1976-78), as an Assistant Professor of Systems Design-at the University of Waterloo (Canada). (1974-76) and as an l engineer for the Canadian government-(1970). l 1

l

r_ .

x

. ~ > ~

F ' .

_v

'Q3: - Please describ'e your recent reseach 1 and consulting activities.

A3::'My research and consulting activities 4are on human perfor-

.mance and--job design. :Since 1974, I have particularly ,

studied the importance of human factors <ni performance of quality control inspectors.. I have_ consulted extensively ,

with a number of private companies and public agencies on various issues pertaining to these subjects.- Among others, I have been retained by.the Firestone Rubber and Tire Com-pany, ITT ' Continental Baking . Company, the United States Department of Labor, the Equal Employment-Opportunity Commis-sion, Ford Motor Company,- Monsanto Company _ and Kaiser

' Aluminum and . Chemical Company. A more detailed listing of my consultations appear on page 3 of my resume that is Attachment A to this testimony.

I have also published a number of scholarly papers and handbook chapters on the subject of human factors and worker performance in industrial settings. In particular, I have conducted several studies and published several papers on the effects of human factors on quality control inspector performance. A more detailed listing of my research activi-

. ties in this and other areas and my published papers appears on pages 5-9 of my resume that is Attachment A to this testimony.

Q4: Please describe your: teaching duties.

A4:' My teaching duties include classes on industrial work perfor-mance, ergonomics, human performance and industrial engineer-ring-systems and design. "A principal focus of my research 2

~

and consultation' activities has been on human factors

.affecting. industrial engineering systems and design, gen-

~erally, and quality control inspections:and worker perfor- ,

mance.in particular.

QS

Please describe what you mean by the terms " human factors" and-" ergonomics".

A5: " Human factors" is concerned with human psychological and mental limitations and capabilities in relation to work tasks'and job performance. Human factors research focuses on the ef fect on job performance of the type, amount and form of information presented to a worker, training, visual design and extrinsic,and intrinsic values which a worker derives from his task.

Ergonomics traditionally-has been predominantly concerned with the physiological and biological aspects of work perfor-mance, such as human limitations in lif ting, pushing, pull-ing or standing during work performance.

Q6: Please describe your particular area of specialization in human factors and ergonomics.

A6: For over 8 years, I have examined how human f actors can affect worker performance in the field of quality control o inspections. .I have designed and analyzed laboratory simu-lations of worker perfopmance on different inspection tasks

.and have consulted with various private companies in applying my analytical experience to-their industrial pro-cesses. I have examined the design of various inspection 3

i

i tasks in. order to facilitate performance andlincrease effec-tiveness. My most;recent research activities have focused on developing -a mathematical model to evaluate the number of

~

3 repeat inspections ~necessary to achieve a defined level of product quality. The thrust of-my research and some of my consulting activities has been to improve the design of inspection tasks in order to promote inspection effective-ness.

Q7: Have you previously examined quality control inspections'in nuclear power plants?

A7: No.

08: Is your general expertise in the field of human factors affecting quality control inspector performance applicable to inspections of nuclear power plants?

A8: Yes. Although my exposure to inspections of nuclear power plant construction activities is limited, my experience in the field of human factors affecting quality control inspec-4 tions at industrial plants is applicable. The work environ-ment at nuclear power plant construction sites may be dif-ferent from that in manufacturing facilities, but the human factors relating to quality control inspections have common elements. In both environments, the inspection task under-

-taken is often characterized by the same monotony, in which the worker repeatedly undertakes the same decision-making task -- an item ~is viewed, measured and then determined to be acceptable or unacceptable (a binary decision) in accor-dance with specified criteria. Regardless of the environ-4 4

,.s ., . .,

cs'

, ment 1or the particular pace of work, the operational-task ofLinspection.is the-same. 'In both cases, inspection is'a

~ process 1of ! selection.

. - Q9:. Are you. familiar.with~the standard reference books and articles'in the field of quality l control inspection?

- A9

Yes.

Q10 - Are you f amiliar with a book authored by Harris and Cheney, Human Factors In Quality Assurance?

i A10: Yes.

Q11:' Do'you regard Human Factors In-Quality Assurance as 1  !

reflecting the latest'research in this field?

All: No. This book was published in 1969 and is outdated.

Subsequently, there-have been substantial advancements of knowledge in this field.

i

, Q12: Are you familiar with the Byron reinspection program? If so, please describe your review of the program.

}

A12: Yes. I have reviewed Edison's Report on the Byron QC Inspector Reinspection-Program (February, 1984) and the

! Supplement to that report (June, 1984). 'I have also l

reviewed the testimony of Edison's witnesses Del George, l

Hansel, Laney and Singh, and the testimony of the NRC Region III Staff on the reinspection program. In my re-view, I have-examined the human factors affecting inspector and reinspector performance and biases the reinspec-

-tion program results that are likely to e attributable to these factors.

~

5

____--.--____-*________.____-m_1._-____-

.r ' l m

Q13: What is the purpose of your testimony?

A13: The purpose of my testimony is to express concern about several human factors affecting inspector and reinspector performance, that are apparent in the design methodology of the Byron reinspection program. My review indicates that three such human factors -- limiting the reinspections to the inspectors' first three months of job performance; that, in most cases, the reinspectors knew the names of the original inspectors; and that, in most cases, the reinspectors knew the original inspection results --

biased the program results most probably in a manner contrary to that suggested by Edison and the NRC Staff. When such biases are properly taken into account, the reinspection program results appear less positive.

Q14: What do you understand to have been Edison's purpose in undertaking the Byron reinspection program?

A14: I understand that a Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspec-tion report identified certain deficiencies in the training and certification of quality control inspecto"s at Byron.

Pursuant to negotiations with the Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission Region III Staff, Edison initiated the reinspec' tion program to evaluate the adequacy of the training and certi-fication of various quality control inspectors.

Q15: Please describe why your experience and research activities directed to simulated laboratory inspections are applicable to your assessment of the human factors affecting the inspections and reinspections at Byron.

6

. 56 _l -

,m t

.A15: Actually there is littlel difference between the tasks being l performed by the ' individual under examination in the lab-oratory and the . inspector at Byron. The : individuals are ,

i performing.a mundane task in which a' decision is to be made  ;

based on.certain criteria. In fact, the impact of various

, human fa'ctorsican~be studied more precisely in a controlled l laboratory setting than in the workplace environment where many more variables are present that affect observation but-not. performance. 'Inf the-laboratory setting, the experi-l menter is able to manipulate various details wore efficiently, Knowledge of the human factors affecting inspector perfor-mance obtained 'from laboratory experiments can then be applied to workplace settings.

L Q16: Are you generally familiar with the procedures and proto-cols used in the Byron reinspection program?

A16: Yes.-

Q17: Please describe the time period over which the llatrield, Hunter and PTL inspectors' performance was reinspected.

A17: The Byron reinspection program focused.on the first three months of inspector performance. The only circumstances in I which reinspections were conducted beyond that time period were when an -inspector's performance was. found to be unsat-l 1sfactory.

(

i Q18:- Are .you familiar with the testimony of Edison's witnesses and the NRC Staff witnesses as to why the first three ,

7 L <

fk .,. .

p.-

t' I mon'ths of inspector performance were' selected for reinspec-tion?

A18: Yes. .They believe'd that any deficient-work by an_ inspector

~

h-is most likely to occur during the early months on the job,.

. and that performance would . improve as the inspectors ' con-

-tinued their work at-the site.- Following that assumption, I th'ey v'iewed reliance on evaluations of the first three months of inspector performance as leading to a conserva-tive bias in.the reinspection program results. I disagree with'their view.

l Q19: Please describe your view of the human factors affecting i

performance of quality control inspectors over the period l

L of their employment, i

A19: Inspector-performance can be expected to attain its highest proficiency level ~1n the period following completion of training. Newly trained individuals generally perform better during the initial inspection period because they are more attentive due to the novelty of their new job;- it l

l begins as stimulating activity that provokes interest. The l

novelty and sensory stimulation decline over time, and the level of performance effectiveness correspondingly de-l clines. The reason for this pattern of performance is the I repetitive, dull and unstimulating nature of the inspection j task.

l l Inspectors and reinspectors are engaged in a monotonous work activity that provokes little sensory interest. Even l

l 0 l

W

if there is some variation of the precise attributes inspected, the actual inspection task is essentially the same and remains monotonous.

Numerous research studies have demonstrated this effect of human factors on inspector performance. Even though these studies have principally focused on fairly short performance periods, the results obtained may well be applied to inspector performance over a longer time period.

However, I am not aware of any longitudinal studies that have directly examined inspector performance over an extended time period.

In many industrial and manufacturing settings, it is not uncommon to rotate individuals between inspections and hardware work tasks in order to mitigate the tedium of inspection tasks.

The assumption by the Edison and NRC Staff witnesses that the inspectors would perform at their lowest level of effectiveness in the first three months following training, and their corresponding conclusions that conducting the reinspections in this period would lead to a conservative bias in the reinspection program results are highly ques-tionable. Since inspectors generally perform at their highest proficiency level in the period following completion of training, and performance effectiveness declines over time, it is likely that the reinspection program results reflect an opposite bias.

The reinspection program would have more accurately examined inspector performance and qualifications if the t

9 e x -. -

reinspections had tested' inspector performance over an extended range of the work period.

Q20: Are you aware that in most cases the.reinspectors knew the names of the inspectors whose work they were reinspecting?

A20: Yes. According to Edison, virtually all types of reinspec-tions were performed with the original inspection reports, and thus the reinspectors were aware of the names or initials of the original inspector. The reinspector received this original report before conducting the reinspection.

The only common exception to these circumstances was for the reinspection of "as built" dimensions, which were per-formed without previously-generated data from inspectors.

l Instead, drawings and other information were provided to ,

reinspectors. I also understand that Mr. Hansel has testi-i fled that in some cases, involving Hunter, inspectors were identified by number.

, Q21: How are the reinspection program results affected by the reinspector having known the name of the original inspector?

A21: The reinspector's knowledge of the identity of the original inspector of an attribute can lead to a bias in the rein-spection results. Workplace dynamics and social associa-tions can influence the reinspector's decision-making criteria.

The Byron reinspection program assigned site contractors responsibility to reinspect their own inspections. I recog-1 l

10 l

l

_n____ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

F e . . -

.o-nize that some p re "- + F, la the reinspection program may have mitigated _these biases. For example, reinspectors were not permitted to verify their own inspections, (in ,

accordance with NBC regulations), and PTL conducted a limited number of over-inspections. Moreover, the NRC Staff witnesses testified that approximately sixty percent of the Hatfield, Hunter and PTL inspectors were no longer on-site during the reinspections; that still leaves a large number of original inspectors on-site at the critical time, and these inspectors and reinspectors may have continued social associations with the off-site inspectors.

To have the maximum confidence in the validity of the reinspection results, the reinspector should be "indepen-dent" of the original inspector. Not only should the inspector's name be concealed, but to minimize bias the reinspector should have no previous involvement at the site, and thus no economic incentive to demonstrate a high level of work quality. That reinspectors were employed by site contractors, and received their initial instructions and general supervision from these same contractors, also may have led to bias of the reinspection results.

I am aware that the NRC regulations (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B) permit site contractors to do both inspections and reinspections, but nevertheless the reinspectors' know-ledge of the inspectors' names led to bias.

In practice, it might be difficult to undertake a com-pletely independent reinspection program, but preventing 11

the.reinspectors from knowing the names of the original.

inspectors would lessen the potential' for_a non-conserva- 'l tive bias resulting.from reinspectors being more lenient. ,

Even if the goal of; complete independence cannot be i

achieved, it should be recognized that, in most cases,-the reinspectors' knew the names of the inspectors whose work

~

t 7

.they examined. This biased the Byron reinspection program results and most-probably led to a higher percentage of, conforming reinspections.-

) Q22: Are you aware that in most cases the reinspectors knew the j original inspection results?

e A22: Yes. For.most of the reinspections in which the reinspec-

} tors were aware of the identities of the original inspectors, they likewise were aware of the original inspection results.  :

i Q23: How are the reinspection program results affected'by the i

• l reinspector having known the original inspection results?  ;

i i A23: It is neither typical, nor desirable, industry practice'to '

permit the reinspectors to know the original inspection  ;

i results. This knowledge can lead to a phenomenon best described as a " mimic" effect in which reinspectors conform -

a

their results to the original inspection results. Various L

studies have shown that, in such circumstances, the reinspec- ,

I r

] tor will tend to shift his acceptance criteria toward reconfirmation because of a general human tendency to avoid t

deviation from a prior determination. Moreover, the rein-j spector might be somewhat reluctant to criticize the past 12 t

r

work of his employer, the site contractor, because of possible adverse economic consequences.

In most cases, the reinspectors knew the original in- ,

spection results. This biased the Byron reinspection pro-gram results and most probably led to a higher percentage of conforming reinspections.

Q24: What is your overall conclusion respecting the effects of human factors on quality control inspectors as applied to the Byron reinspection program results.

A24: The cumulative effect of these three particular human fac-tors present in the structure and implementation of the Byron reinspection program -- reliance on reinspections of the inspectors' first three months of job performance; thatv in most cases, the reinspectors knew the names of the original inspectors; and that, in most cases, the reinspec-tors knew the original inspection results -- biased the program results, and most probably led to a higher perceIt-age of conforming reinspections. The percentage of the original inspectors' work found to be acceptable by the reinspectors thus would be higher than otherwise would have been justified by the circumstances. Reliable conclusions about the reinspection program results can be made only after the biases from these human factors are taken into account.

13 1

r

.- ATTACllMENT A Revised 03/84

-1 ,

CURRICULUM VITAL Dev 5. Kochhar 3341 Bluett Drive (3 3) 763-0133 (off.)

Ann Arbor, til 43105 ( 313i 995-3156 ( res. )

USA U.S. resident, Canadian citizen, oorn 1940, married, one child A. EDUCATION Ph.0. 1974: Systens Design University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada ti.A.Sc. 1972: Systems Design, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada B. Tech (ilons) 1970: itechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technol;]y, Kharagpur, India

0. POS!T!QUS HELD Associate Professor of Industrial & Operations Engineering, The (1980 - present) University of etichigan, Ann Arbor, litchigan.

Adjunct Professor of r,ystens Engineering, Univeristy of Regina, (1980 - 1981) C a r.a da .

Associate Professor of Systens Engineering, University of Regina, (1973 - 1930) Canadi.

Assistant Professor of Industrial Engineering, University of (1970 - 1978) Windsor, Canada.

Assistant Professor of Systens Design, University of Waterloo, (1974 - 1976) Canada.

Engineer Departrent of Public Works, Govt. of Canada.

(Summer 1970)

Engineer Lear manuf acturing division, Prenter Autoinobiles (Sumner 1968) Ltd. (Division of FIAT of Italy), Bombay, India.

Engineer Pressure die-casting division, Orient General (Sunner 1967) Industries Ltd., Calcutta, India.

f .

C. TEACHING AREAS (recent)

- Man-liachine Systems, Industrial Work Performance

- Ergonomics Human Performance .

Reliability and Engineering Design

- Engineering Statistics Industrial Engineering Systems Class size varied fran 3 to 200 students very Good to Excellent evaluations as teacher D. RESEARCH Ano C0tl5ULTATICN ACTIVITIES 0.1. Research Principal Sub-Investigator, Data display in Automotive Assembly, Project funded by Ford Motor Company. April 1983 - present.

Principal investigator, iluman-Robot Design and Task Allocation. Internal funding, The Unversity of Michigan, March 1982 - December 1982.

Principal Sub-!nvestigator, Human-Computer Interf ace Design for Manufacturing Information Systems. Large-scale interdisciplinary project funded by Air Force Office of Scientific Research, August 1982 to present.

Principal Investigator, User Problens of Sof tware for Manufacturing.

Project funded by Manufacturing Data Systens incorporated. April 1982 to present.

Principal Sub-!nvestigator, Rehabilitation of Perceptually Disabled Drivers, stealth and Human Services, Washington, D.C. Septenber 1980 to August 1983.

Principal Investigator on several projects funded through the National Research Council of Canada. April 1975 to August 1981.

Principal Investigator, Work Simplification in Saskatchewan's illneral Industry. Project funded through Saskatchewan Research Council. April 1979 to August 1931.

Co-Investigator, Monocular Peripheral Vision as a Factor in Flignt Safety, Ministry of Transport, Civil Aviation, Ottawa. November 1974 to June 1976.

Principal Investigator, Productivity and Product Mix, Kitchener Center for Disabled Citizens. September 1974 ta August 1975.

D.R. Other Proposals Prepared /In-preparation Age and work with VOTs in of fices- NI A (in preparation '83 '84). i NASA Training Grant- lean E f fort (1n preparation) '83 '84.

Training in Quality Control and Reliability for GM Engineers, '82 '83.

Faculty Initiated Development Grant; 10E Oepartment, U of M; '81-82.

Conference Grant to hold Joint USA / Sweden Workshop on Productivity and Autonation; National Science Foundation; flov.1 '81.

Management Ef fectiveness in Adopting Computer-Aided fianufacturing; Team Project, Naticnal Science Foundation, '81 '82.

rt -

1"E e a -

~

7 y ,' . . ,

L

~ ,

~

Human' Considerations' in Nuclear Power-Plant Control Room Design; Phoenix

Memorial. Project;cU- of *1; '31 '82.

JA LTask Analysis for Certificationland Training of Spent Fuel sStorage - -

0perators; Sandia National Laboratories; '82 '83.

-D.3'. Consultation

, Ford < Motor Company,

Dearcorn,

M1.

( '

Centrol Panels for Automated Assembly; Display of assembly information.

. Equal- Employment Opportuni ty . Commission, ' Detroit, M1 AnalysisLof Skill Requirements in Tool Bit Manufacture.

ITT.- Continental Baking Company, Little' Rock, AK.

Job Design / Placement of Hearing Impaired Worker.

Metro Canada / Urban Transportation Development Corp.

Hunan' Factors in Control room design ~.

Burroughs Corporation, Detroit,- MI' Hunan Considerations in the Design of a Conmunications Center.

U.S.-Department of Labor, Cleveland, OH

~ Job Design / Placement' of Visually inpaired Worker.

-ilichigan Bell, Southfield, Ill Integration of VDT's into the Workplace.

The Monsanto Company, St. Louis, M0 Staffing. and Maintenance Requirements for Transfer Lines in: Sili. con Wafer flanufacture.

Vlasic Foods, Inc., boutnfield, M1 Iluman Factors in (Juality Control .

Bell-Horthern desearch, Ottawa, Canada Evaluation of Visual Display Terminals.

Communication Workers of America, Inc., Cincinnati, OH Workplace usage of VOT's.

. Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, Wilson, SC Job Design / Job Analysis /Placeinent of Visually lapaired Workers.

Kaiser Aluininum and Chemical Co., Spokane, AA

-' Job. Design / Job Analysis / Placement of Visually Impaired Workers.

liealth and Welfare Canada, Civil Aviation, Ottawa, Canada Flight Performance / Visual Impairment and Age Based Retirement of Airline Pilots.

Ontario Provincial Police, Toronto, Canada Planning and Inplementation of ilobile Comuunication Systems.

MacDonald, Dettwiler and A'ssociates, Vancouver, BC, Canada' Human Considerations in the Design of a Police Communications Center.

E. . ACADEMIC AND RESEARCh INTERESTS

.Hunan performance in industry, industrial productivity as it relates s to the worker, human and equipment reliability, workplace design, .l r visual factors in design.

l 1

Man-machine interaction, modelling and computer simulation,' human  !

! factors in-transportation, industrial and workplace safety. )

l p

i

r:

,. . j

w- , ,

1 1

-F. OTHER HONORS AND ACTIVITIES Conference Honors: Arrangements Chairman, Session Chairman, Panel Member for various national and international conferences (1975 to present).

• Editor: Book Reviews, Ergonomics Division of AIIE, 1981-1983.

. Communique, Bulletin of -the Human Factors Association of Canada 1978-79

-Reviewed several proposals for The National Science Foundation since'1981.

Reviewer for AllE Transactions.

Outstanding Young Men of America, listed in 1981 Edition.

Administrative -

' Served as member / chairman of several university and faculty committees.

Served as Tutor and Don in Residence at The University of Waterloo, and Divisional Manager in Residence, September 1972 - August 1976.

Served as Member, CUS0 (Canadian University Student Overseas) Interview Board, 1974-1976.

G. PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS Registered Professional Engineer, Province of Ontario Senior Member, American Institute of Industrial Engineers Member, Human Factors Society, USA Member, IEEE Systems Man and Cybernetics Group Senior itember, Robotics International of 91E Member, Operations Research Society of America.

H.- 0THER COURSES ATTENDED Institute for Professional Education Linear7 and Non-Linear flodel Fitting, Washington, D.C., August 1978 Simulation Modeling .and , Analysis, San Francisco, March 1980 AIIE, Developing and Managing an Effective Work Measurement Program, Atlanta, May 1980.

1. CONTINUING EDUCATION / COURSES PRESENTED Firemen's Fund Insurance Company, November 1980.

Summer Course on .0ccupational Ergonomics, U of M. June 1981, 1982.

L_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ .

-3

.l R-

Working Women of America, Inc., May.1981.

South East Michigan Conference'on Occupational Safety and Health *

(.SEttCOSil), May & Nov.'1981.

AFL-CIO, December 1981.

SEMCOSH, March 1982.

. Harvard University, Continuing Education, June .1982.

Management. Briefing Seminar, U of'M,' August 1982.

Ameri:an . Chiropractic Association, February '1983.

Ford Motor Comapny, 1983, 1984.

-J. Ph.D. COMMITTEES Terry Truaxi (Member)

Yvonne Abdoo (Member)

!!ajid Jaraiedi (!1 ember)

Min'Chung (Member)

Joe- Gol dberg (Member)-

J. Nahajan (External Examiner)

Amjad Umar (Member)

K. PAPERS PRESENTED / PUBLISHED Kochhar, D.S. and Wills, 0.L., Simulation of a Two-man Interaction System.

Proceedings, Fif th Conference on the Apolications of Simulation, New- York, December, 1971. pp. 50-62.

Kochhar, D.S. and Fraser, T.M., The effect of a simulated driving task on signal monitoring in the peripheral visual field. Presented at:the Annual

. Conference of the Ergonomics Research Society, Cardiff, Wales, April 1972.

Kochhar, U.S. and Fraser, T.M., Observations on a simulated driving task and its effects on response times to peripheral visual stimuli for lef t and right handed subjects. Proceedings, -Sixteenth Conference of the Human

-Factors Society, Los Angeles, October 1972. pp 40-43.

Fraser, T.M. , Kochhar, D.S. and Smiley, A.M., Peripheral Vision--shrinkage of the peripheral field as a result of central task loading. Proceedings, 44th Annual Scientific Meeting of the Aerospace tiedical Association, Las Vegas, May 1973. ( Abstract only).

l Kochhar, D.S. and.Fraser, T.H., Some limitations of the visual process in a '

dynanic situation. Proceedings, Tenth Annual Meeting of the Traffic Injury Research Foundation of Canada, Ottawa, June 1973. pp 48-52.

l LL.

re .

3,

.Kochhar, D.S. and Fraser, T.M., Peripheral . visual performance in a.

simulated tracking task...some quantitative aspects. Proceedings, First

-International ~ Conference on Driver Behavior, Zurich, Switzerland, October

.1973.

• Kochhar, HD.S. and Fraser, T.M. , Models of Response Time to Peripheral Stimuli . Proceedings, Eighteenth Conference of the Human Factors Society, Huntsville, Alabama,' October 1974, p. 533 ( Abstract only).

Alliston,- D.J. and Kochhar, 0.5., Public Safety Communications Systems Simulation. Proceedings,. Winter Computer Simulation Conference, Sacramento, Cali fornia, December 1975. pp. 297-300.

.Kochhar, D.S., Human Factors Considerations in the Design of MRDS ~

Comjunications Center. Tech. Rep. #1, MacDonald Dettwiler & Associated Ltd. , Vancouver, B.C. , January 1976.

Kochhar, D.S., The Use of a Joystick for Data Entry in the Mobile. Tech.

Rep. #2, MacDonald Dettwiler & Associates Ltd., Vancouver, B.C., April 1976.

Kochhar, D.S., Field Evaluation of the Informer In-car Terminal System.

Tech. Rep. 43, MacDonald Dettwiler & Associates Ltd., Vancouver, B.C., May 1976.

Rabideau, G.F. and Kochhar, U.S., Human Engineering, Human Factors and Psychological Considerations with Respect to MRDS Design and Prototype T ri al s. Tech. Rep., MacDonald Dettwiler & Associates Ltd., Vancouver, B.C., May 1976.

Kochhar, D.S. and Fraser, T.M., Monocular Peripheral Vision as a Factor in Flight Safety. Tech. Rep.13037, Waterloo Research Institute, University of Waterloo. Prepared for Ministry of Transport, Government of Canada, June 1976.

Kochhar, D.S., Models for the prediction of human response time to visual targets. Applications & Research in Information Systems and Sciences:

Proceedings of the First International Conference on Information Sciences and Systems, Patras, dreece, August 1976. Hemisphere Publishing. Corp.,

Washington, D.C. pp. 884-888.

Kochhar, D.S., Aspects of pilot monocularity in relation to flying.

Proceedings, Ninth Annual Conference of the Human Factors Association of Canada, bracebridge, Ontario, September 1976. pp. 20-26.

Colonna, J. and Kochhar, U.S. , Communication System Sinulation. Tech. Rep.

e5012-2, Waterloo Research Institute, University of Waterloo. Prepared for Ontario Provincial Police, Systems Planning and Research, Toronto, November 1976.

Kochhar, D.S. and Fraser, T.M. Monocular Peripheral Vision as a Factor in Flight Safety. Aviation. Space and Environmental Medicine, 49(5):698-706,

-1978.

E

e

-o

-7 Kochhar, D.S., Age and . Task Performance: a survey of past and future research. Presented at the International Conference of the International Ergonomics Association / Ergonomics Society, Slough, U.K., September 1977.

Kochhar, D.S. and Aly, T. , Understan ling Social change through Siaulation.

Presented at the flinth Annual Simulation and Modeling Conference, Pittsburgh, April 1978.

Kochhar, D.S. .and Woode, J., Fault Information. Display Density and Inspector Performance. Proceedings, 29th Annual Conference of AllE, Toronto, May 1978 p. 90 ( Abstract only). .

Kochhar D.S., Age, Accidents and Industrial Productivity. Presented at the 11tn Conference of the 'ianan Factors Association af Canada, Bracebridge, Ontario, September 1978.

Kochhar, D.S. and Ali , d. , Information Content and Task Performance: a study of the older worker. Proceedings, 22nd Annual Conference of the Human Factors Society, Detroit, Ucteoer 1978, pp. 558-563.

Kochhar, D.S. and Jaisingh, S.C., Contemporary Approaches to Paced Visual Inspection. AIIE Transactions, 12(1):38-46, 1980.

Kochhar, D.S. and Ali, H., Age as a Factor in Combined Manual and Decision Tasks. Human Factors, 21(5):595-603, 1979.

Kochhar, D.S. , Age and Dysfunction in Airline Pilots. Tech. Rep. #11-34, The IndJstrial Research Insti tute, Universi ty of Windsor. Prepared for Health & Wel f are Canada, October 1978.

Kochhar, D.S. and Abbondi , G. , FM Channel Allocations on a Wired Cable Distribution System. Proceedings, Tenth Annual Pittsburgh Conference, 10(5),1979, 2163-2169 ( sponsored jointly by IEEE, ISA, SI4C, SC5, I ARCS).

Kochhar, D.S., driver Training using Part-Task Simulators, Presented at the  !

2nd Annual Interagency Conference on Rehabilitation Engineering, Atlanta, Georgia, August, 1979.

Kochhar, U.S. , Visual Requirements for Potroon Jobs, Tech. Rep. Prepared for Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Co., Spokane, Washington, August 1979.

Kochhar, D.S. and Abbondi, G.A., Channel Allocations on a Cable Distribution System. International Journal of Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 4, 173-184, 1980.

Kochhar, O.S., Driver Behaviour and Performance: past and future research, 22nd Annual Conference, Western Canada Traffic Association, Regina, Saskatchewan, October 1979.

Kochhar, D.S., Visual Job Analysis of Potroom Jobs, Tech. Report., Prepared for Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Co., Spokane, Washington, April 1980.

.o .

, Kochhar, D.S., " Improving Inspection Effectiveness - A Simulation

, Approach," Joint Quality Control & Ergonomics Session, Proceedings, AIIE, Atlanta, GA, May 1980, pp. 500-507.

-Armstrong, T., Kochhar, D.S. Work Performance and Handicapped Persons, in Handbook of Industrial Engineering. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1982.

Kochhar, D.S., A Unified Approach to Inspection Task Design. Proceedings, 5th International Conference on Autonated Inspection and Product Control.

Stuttgart, West Germany, June 1980, pp. 327-338.

Kochhar, D.S., Human Factors 'in the Design of Work Inspection and Quality

= Control Systems. Invi ted Presentation, 7tn Annual Ira Symposium, Tel Aviv, Israel, June 1980.

Kochhar, D.S., Ergonomic Work Design for Effective Employment of the Aged.

, Invited Presentation, 7th Annual Ira Symposium, Tel Aviv, Israel, June 1980.

Kochhar, D.S., An Analysis of Age and Information Load in Type II Tasks. ~

International Journal of Production Research, (accepted for publication, to appear).

Kochhar, 0.S. , Miller, J .M. , Boydstun , L. An Approach to Training the Disabled Driver. Proceedings, International Conference IEEE-SMC, Atlanta, October 1981, pp. 375-379.

Jaraiedi , M. , Kochhar, D.S. , Jaisingh, S. Minimum Inspections to Meet Desired Outgoing yuality. Journal of Quality Technoloty(submitted,1983).

Kochhar, 0.5. and Pelosi, S. Human Reliability and the Design of Inspection Systems. Proceedings, Annual Conference of the Human Factors Society, Rochester, u.Y. October 1981, pp. 632-636.

i-Kochhar, D. S. Manufacturing Systems Ergonomics. Presented at Joint

! USA / Germany /SME Workshop on Manufacturing, Uearborn, Michigan, March 1982.

l Kochhar, D.S. and Williston, P. Some Considerations in the Productivity of Potash Mines. Proceedings, Annual Conference of the Human Factors Society, j Seattle, Washington. October 1982, pp. 394-398.

I Evans, S.M. and Kochhar, D.S. Office Automation and Managerial Productivity: Some Issues. Proceedings, Annual Conference of the liuman Factors Society, Seattle, Washington. October 1982, pp. 64-68.

Kochhar, D.S. Disabled Driver Evaluation and Training using an Interactive Simulator. Proceedings, Rehabilitation Engineering Society of North America, Houston, Texas, August 1982, p. 107.

I Kochhar, D.S. and Foulke, J. Comparative Evaluation of Visual Display Terminal s . Journal, American Industrial Hygiene Association, (submitted 1984).

so:

.J t :

9 Kochhar, D.S; and Jaraeidi, M. The Effect of Multi-Stage Inspections on Average Outgoing Quali ty, Trans.,' American Society of Mechanical Enginee*s, PED-Vol. 9,-11-16, 1983.

Kochhar,.D. S., and- Frembgen, S.

. " Validation of' Simulator evaluation 1of Disabled Drivers." Proc.. Rehabilitation Engineering Society of North

. America,. San Diego, CA, June, 1983.

Kochhar, D.'S.', and Evans, S. :" Managerial Productivity and Office Automation ." 1983 World Congress on' the Human Aspectss of Automation, Ann

-Arbor, Michigan, August, 1983. SME Paper #MM83-483.

Kochhar, D.S.'" Ergonomic and Anthropometric Data,". chapter in preparation-for Standard' Handbook of Machine Design. Mc-Graw Hill Book Co., J. Shigley'

-(Ed.).

i

e . .e:

s. ...

RELATED C0 iip 2SPON,Dg5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD cogggg .,

USNRC In the Matter of:~ )

) Docket No. ' 50-454 084 AGO 16 P1 :15 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) 50-455 OL

) La NE :HMt #

'(Byron Nuclear Power Station, ) DCCKums & stsvp Units 1 and 2) ) ERANCH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify I served copies of the Testimony of Dr. Dev S. Kochhar on the following persons by having said copies placed in envelopes, properly addressed and postaged (first class) and having them deposited in the U.S. mail at 109 North

Dearborn (or,

as indicated by an asterisk, sent by Purelator Courier or Federal Express), except that Mr. Miller's copy was hand-delivered.

1. Ivan W. Smith, Chairman

• Stephen Lewis, Esq.

Administrative Judge Office of Executive Legal Atomic Safety and Licensing Director l Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555

1. Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Office of the Secretary of Administrative Judge the Commission Union Carbide Corporation ATTN: Docketing & Service P.O. Box Y Section Oak Ridge, TN 37830 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• Dr. Richard F. Cole Washington, D.C. 20555 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety & Licensing Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Board Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety & Licensing Commission Appeal Board Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 1

P . , .-

Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy Joseph Gallo, Esq.

Administrative' Judge Isham Lincoln & Beale Atomic Safety & Licensing 1120 Connecticut Ave., N.W. .

Appeal Board Washington, D.C. 20036 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Michael I. Miller, Esq.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Michael R. Goldfein, Esq.

.Isham Lincoln & Beale

1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Three First National Plaza Commission, Region III Chicago, IL 60603 ATTN: JOHN STREETER 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 DATED: August 14, 1984

/4 Attorney 2